69
69
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
FOXNEWS
tv
eye 69
favorite 0
quote 0
there was no sufficient resources in the area for a thousand miles, panetta says. if you've got these warnings as dempsey said they knew about the cable that was sent to hillary clinton saying benghazi's not defensible. they knew about the 200 threats. why wasn't there a plane ready to be scrambled for an intervention in the first place? it's a very strange oversight that no one teams t seems to be particularly outraged. >> you heard panetta say you can't fly in f-16s and bomb the heck out of a place. you can use it psych ljl psychoy and fly it over the compound. they're very intimidating. >> no question. at the very least they could have been used to disperse the crowds. you hear this when you talk to folks in uniform. that's what bothers them as much as anything. why wasn't something like that done, at least the very basics. you could dis percent the crowds, have additional flyovers, send a gunship. i've heard from people it would have taken 13 to 15 hours to have people to push back. i've talked to several military folks today who say that's just not true, that
there was no sufficient resources in the area for a thousand miles, panetta says. if you've got these warnings as dempsey said they knew about the cable that was sent to hillary clinton saying benghazi's not defensible. they knew about the 200 threats. why wasn't there a plane ready to be scrambled for an intervention in the first place? it's a very strange oversight that no one teams t seems to be particularly outraged. >> you heard panetta say you can't fly in f-16s and bomb the heck...
197
197
Feb 15, 2013
02/13
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 197
favorite 0
quote 0
this is from the hearing with panetta and dempsey. they are asked about the memo sent up the chain to hillary clinton where she says she didn't see it. dempsey, chairman of the joint chief and secretary of defense asked about it specifically. >> you said previously you were aware of that. >> i was aware of the communication back to state department. >> when secretary clinton testified a few weeks ago she had a clear eyed assessment of the threat we faced in libya, is that really a credible statement? if she didn't know about the ambassador's cable on august 15 saying we can't defend this place? >> i don't know if she didn't know about the cable. >> she said she didn't. >> are you stunned that she didn't? >> i'm call myself surprised. >> we are surprised. >> this is from the ambassador who is later killed that said this is indefensible. we are attacked we'll die. the secretary of state for whom this ambassador is working didn't see it, so that is issue number one on the prehistory. secondly on the day of the attack, the president had a
this is from the hearing with panetta and dempsey. they are asked about the memo sent up the chain to hillary clinton where she says she didn't see it. dempsey, chairman of the joint chief and secretary of defense asked about it specifically. >> you said previously you were aware of that. >> i was aware of the communication back to state department. >> when secretary clinton testified a few weeks ago she had a clear eyed assessment of the threat we faced in libya, is that...
102
102
Feb 14, 2013
02/13
by
FOXNEWS
tv
eye 102
favorite 0
quote 1
he didn't talk to brennan or jack lew or dempsey or panetta in the evening. he never called to say how are we doing? he was disengaged. he turned to romney and say i send these people in harm's way and i know the families he was letting us believe he was hands on. frank lil, seems to be it was detached. >> bret: i want to listen to what the president said today on the topic regarding benghazi. take a listen. >> this is the most transparent administration in history. there are a handful of issues around security where people have legitimate questions and they are still concerned about whether or not we have all the information we need. benghazi by the way is not a good example of that. that was largely driven by campaign stuff because everything about that we have had more testimony and more paper provided to congress than ever before. congress is running out of things to ask. >> i want to play again, hillary clinton from her testimony. we have heard this before. listen again. i want you to react to it. >> with all due respect we have four dead americans. is i
he didn't talk to brennan or jack lew or dempsey or panetta in the evening. he never called to say how are we doing? he was disengaged. he turned to romney and say i send these people in harm's way and i know the families he was letting us believe he was hands on. frank lil, seems to be it was detached. >> bret: i want to listen to what the president said today on the topic regarding benghazi. take a listen. >> this is the most transparent administration in history. there are a...
149
149
Feb 9, 2013
02/13
by
CNBC
tv
eye 149
favorite 0
quote 0
you had this hearing yesterday with panetta and dempsey. that's where this information came out. >> i will protect the senate's rights all day long when it comes to any executive branch whether it's obama, clinton, bush or the next person. i'm not -- my desire is not to protect t protect executive branch. i like congressional hearings. i also like nonhypocrisy. joel just called this a scandal, a conspiracy. there is no conspiracy here unless you say it's a conspiracy. if there is have more hearings. bring them all in. >> it's hard to have fruitful hearings with people who won't tell you the truth. >> you're right. we didn't have much of that during the bush hearings. >> we may never know. a lot of holes in this story that came out dramatically yesterday when leon panetta was cross examined. that's the thing. five months later we're still getting new information. gentlemen, thank you. joel pollack, we appreciate it. jimmy williams as always. kevin williamson thank you. now we're going to finish off the week with one last look at your money.
you had this hearing yesterday with panetta and dempsey. that's where this information came out. >> i will protect the senate's rights all day long when it comes to any executive branch whether it's obama, clinton, bush or the next person. i'm not -- my desire is not to protect t protect executive branch. i like congressional hearings. i also like nonhypocrisy. joel just called this a scandal, a conspiracy. there is no conspiracy here unless you say it's a conspiracy. if there is have...
67
67
Feb 12, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 67
favorite 0
quote 0
those steps are as far as leon panetta can go under current law. and this is remarkable. look at this. this is from the memo today. he writes, quote, in the event that the defense of marriage act is no longer applicable to the department of defense, it will be the policy of the department to construe the words "spouse" and "marriage" without regard to sexual orientation. and married couples, irrespectable of sexual orientation and their dependents will be granted full military benefits. it's remarkable, right? it's leon panetta saying that today's list of 40 or so new benefits for equal treatment for gay soldiers and their families is as far as the military can take this equality thing right now. but that the military would like to go the rest of the way right now. they would like to equalize all benefits. the reason they can't go further is defense of marriage act signed into law by president clinton, and president clinton now disavows it. to some extent, the question of whether or not the military is going to be as equal as it wants to be depends on the u.s. supreme cou
those steps are as far as leon panetta can go under current law. and this is remarkable. look at this. this is from the memo today. he writes, quote, in the event that the defense of marriage act is no longer applicable to the department of defense, it will be the policy of the department to construe the words "spouse" and "marriage" without regard to sexual orientation. and married couples, irrespectable of sexual orientation and their dependents will be granted full...
114
114
Feb 15, 2013
02/13
by
CURRENT
tv
eye 114
favorite 0
quote 0
panetta testified. then it was we want to hear from secretary clinton. senator clinton did testify. then it was a request put out to the white house tuesday asking for specific information about where the president was and was doing on september 11, 2012 after the raid in benghazi. now, the white house pointed out that all this information is public record, that as this was happening in realtime, we were learning about secretary clinton at the secretary's request was speaking to labor yes. the following day the president himself called the president of libya. senators were still insisting that the white house put to them in writing this very same question. they got that this morning. they said their concerns are satisfied. as we know, there are other senators looking for more information. cenk: one last thing here. look, you know first of all hagel has nothing to do with benghazi. he wasn't in the government. it's abstored begin with on that note. again, i look for what's their real motivation, now, one thing which is what they say then there's a second thing, what they're waiting f
panetta testified. then it was we want to hear from secretary clinton. senator clinton did testify. then it was a request put out to the white house tuesday asking for specific information about where the president was and was doing on september 11, 2012 after the raid in benghazi. now, the white house pointed out that all this information is public record, that as this was happening in realtime, we were learning about secretary clinton at the secretary's request was speaking to labor yes. the...
76
76
Feb 15, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 76
favorite 0
quote 0
we have leon panetta and the secretary. there is leadership. but the other sort of incidental but not unimportant victim of all this is also john brennan's nomination. whatever you think of it, that has also been held up until after the recess for very good reasons many say because diane feinstein is now demanding seven more legal documents on targeted killings from the administration. the administration says that that's an exaggeration. that some of those that were already turned over actually were simply expansions of some of the seven she's demanding. but you're not going to have a cia director either until after the recess. >> if chuck hagel ends up confirmed and that was part of the statement today. he has majority support. he got 58 votes on the cloture vote today which implies he will be confirmed if they allow a vote. once we get defense secretary chuck hagel, what does what we just went through mean for what the relationship's going to be like between congress and the pentagon? congress and the pentagon are a little bit at each other's
we have leon panetta and the secretary. there is leadership. but the other sort of incidental but not unimportant victim of all this is also john brennan's nomination. whatever you think of it, that has also been held up until after the recess for very good reasons many say because diane feinstein is now demanding seven more legal documents on targeted killings from the administration. the administration says that that's an exaggeration. that some of those that were already turned over actually...
137
137
Feb 16, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 137
favorite 0
quote 0
he hoped to be at the table but secretary panetta has to stay on because of this so i think senator reed was probably right when he said this was the worst example yet of partisanship in washington but who knows. something may come up in the next week and a half that might hurt senator hagel but the white house still seems somewhat confident but the question is how does he emerge from this? he -- everyone thought he would get through because he's a senator. but the thing is, 43 senators who are voting on him never served with chuck hagel. he's only been out of the senate for four year. he left in 2009. that's what's going on here. it's almost an entirely -- half the senate is almost entirely new so he doesn't have relationship and the relationships he has are bad joimpt so, todd, is that it, really? it's just about politics? >> it's hard to think it's about anything other than politics. senator mccain was asking the same tough questions chuck hagel was. senator mccain was a tough critic of the bush administration's execution of that war in 2003 through 2005. so i think if they're just pu
he hoped to be at the table but secretary panetta has to stay on because of this so i think senator reed was probably right when he said this was the worst example yet of partisanship in washington but who knows. something may come up in the next week and a half that might hurt senator hagel but the white house still seems somewhat confident but the question is how does he emerge from this? he -- everyone thought he would get through because he's a senator. but the thing is, 43 senators who are...
133
133
Feb 13, 2013
02/13
by
KRCB
tv
eye 133
favorite 0
quote 0
leon panetta the out going secretary of defense. they have been two of the most critical of the nominee to be his successor, chuck hagel. it is date night too. i want to point out that. the democratic senator from colorado two years ago proposed, judy, that members instead of just democrats sitting with democrats and republicans... this year i think he's doing it with the republican senator from alaska, that peoplec with people from the other party and across the aisle. several members have done it. i think mccain and gram seem to be a couple of them. >> they share the popcorn. woodruff: that's a tradition they started a few years ago. a a number of members picked it up. it seemed to fade. >> it was done right after the gabrielle giffords. >> woodruff: she's here tonight. i don't think we've seen her in the last few minutes but we saw her just before we went on the air. she's there with her husband mark kelly. she and her husband have become the two, i guess, you could say the most prominent faces of this new push to do something ab
leon panetta the out going secretary of defense. they have been two of the most critical of the nominee to be his successor, chuck hagel. it is date night too. i want to point out that. the democratic senator from colorado two years ago proposed, judy, that members instead of just democrats sitting with democrats and republicans... this year i think he's doing it with the republican senator from alaska, that peoplec with people from the other party and across the aisle. several members have...
81
81
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
FOXNEWS
tv
eye 81
favorite 0
quote 0
and panetta and dempsey said they knew it was a terrorist attack on september 11th. who my question, how could the president of the united states over two weeks tell us we don't know what happened? >> unbelievable. >> how could susan rice go on national tv and say there's no evidence of a coordinated terrorist attack. she misled the american people. who changed the talking points? and secretary clinton's story makes no sense. she said she had a clear-eyed view of the threats. she didn't know about the august 15 memo from other own ambassador and the secretary of defense did. >> sean: and the president himself was still blaming a youtube video two weeks later. >> yes. >> sean: last question. you're against enhanced interrogation and you and i had a disagreement on that. >> i'm against torture. >> sean: i don't believe the thee people water-boarded were torture, not to digress. >> okay. >> sean: what about the president bombing people, killing them with drone attacks? >> i think he should have enhanced interrogation techniques that are classified and i think we should
and panetta and dempsey said they knew it was a terrorist attack on september 11th. who my question, how could the president of the united states over two weeks tell us we don't know what happened? >> unbelievable. >> how could susan rice go on national tv and say there's no evidence of a coordinated terrorist attack. she misled the american people. who changed the talking points? and secretary clinton's story makes no sense. she said she had a clear-eyed view of the threats. she...
115
115
Feb 14, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 115
favorite 0
quote 0
by secretary panetta that there was an unfolding assault happening in benghazi. those are things that came out through recent testimony through panetta, and the joint chiefs chair that had he had not spoken to the president again after initially informing hem. that created a new sort of political oxygen for republicans who want to know if there was a missing ambassador, what was the president doing, and, of course, the white house says that he was being properly informed by his national security team and so forth, but there are questions they want to know. crediting the president, they say, for being so hands-on during the osama bin laden raid wanting to know with was he as hands on when an american ambassador was missing and an unknown assault was taking place. those are the questions. they've created a lot of heat. lindsey graham, who was a big proponent of this fight, is up for re-election in south carolina in 20 14. his re-election politics are a part of this story. he has said that he fought the republican bush administration on issues about the iraq war, ta
by secretary panetta that there was an unfolding assault happening in benghazi. those are things that came out through recent testimony through panetta, and the joint chiefs chair that had he had not spoken to the president again after initially informing hem. that created a new sort of political oxygen for republicans who want to know if there was a missing ambassador, what was the president doing, and, of course, the white house says that he was being properly informed by his national...
120
120
Feb 14, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 120
favorite 0
quote 0
we had to [ bleep ] secretary panetta. we joked about this as an issue during our interview with secretary panetta. we didn't have to bleep him then, but we did have to bleep him yesterday. anyway, just ask yourself, though, confirmation hearings, they may not be decisive, but they do matter. ask yourself while john brennan and jack lew are frankly having an easier confirmation process. no -- wasn't exactly going through scot-free, but they had good hearings. they aced the hearing part of the confirmation. hagel was a borderline disaster on style for his confirmation hearing and he certainly struggled on substance. and that's where we are. and by the way, if hagel does get through, he's going to go in as a very, very weak secretary of defense, that has to be wearing on the mind of the folks that sit in the west wing. jack reed is the president on line one. anyway, president obama's outside game is clear. he's on the road, pushing a raft of politically popular initiatives, daring republicans to essentially fall into a polit
we had to [ bleep ] secretary panetta. we joked about this as an issue during our interview with secretary panetta. we didn't have to bleep him then, but we did have to bleep him yesterday. anyway, just ask yourself, though, confirmation hearings, they may not be decisive, but they do matter. ask yourself while john brennan and jack lew are frankly having an easier confirmation process. no -- wasn't exactly going through scot-free, but they had good hearings. they aced the hearing part of the...
66
66
Feb 14, 2013
02/13
by
CURRENT
tv
eye 66
favorite 0
quote 0
what would it mean if leon panetta had to go to that meeting instead of chuck hagel? >> well, you know, i think the big issues here have to do not so much with the nato meeting because with all due respect to n.a.t.o. it's a great organization, i don't know of any huge n.a.t.o. decisions that are up coming in the next few weeks. but the sequestration looms and you well know, and the iran management looms. we have to make decisions on afghanistan. but the president just made most of those for the time being. again, i think it's sequestration and iran probably that demands hagel get up to speed quickly. that's where i would want him confirmed to engage on those debates as soon as possible. >> michael: i would suspect there would be republican glee in embarrassing the president having to send in sitting but lame duck secretary to nato. so i feel like that's part of what they want tad. to do. >> very quickly. you're right. any particular incident like that may factor in at a detailed level. but the fundamental question here the fundamental issue is that republicans don't
what would it mean if leon panetta had to go to that meeting instead of chuck hagel? >> well, you know, i think the big issues here have to do not so much with the nato meeting because with all due respect to n.a.t.o. it's a great organization, i don't know of any huge n.a.t.o. decisions that are up coming in the next few weeks. but the sequestration looms and you well know, and the iran management looms. we have to make decisions on afghanistan. but the president just made most of those...
108
108
Feb 15, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 108
favorite 0
quote 0
walnuts stwloosh that in and of itself could be catastrophic for leon panetta. >> i guess i disagree on the thesis of our open here. once this happens, radika, and i would love to get your thoughts, these are these threshold that is no one can ever turn back from. now it is going to be par for the course for sort of the party in minority to hold up cabinet picks. i mean, nothing -- it was one thing when it was judicial picks. it was another thing when it was low level staff picks. now it's the cabinet -- the cabinet is not immune from political football, basically. >> it did occur to me given the news of the week that maybe it would be better if ten people went into a room, sent up white smoke and suddenly we had a new secretary because part of the damage is watching this theater, which as you have said earlier, the american public is actually not that interested in. i mean, these aren't hillary clinton hearings. you know, i think everybody realizes, both sides, that the hagel hearings did not go well. he did not come off well. this was never going to be an elgabt process, but it is
walnuts stwloosh that in and of itself could be catastrophic for leon panetta. >> i guess i disagree on the thesis of our open here. once this happens, radika, and i would love to get your thoughts, these are these threshold that is no one can ever turn back from. now it is going to be par for the course for sort of the party in minority to hold up cabinet picks. i mean, nothing -- it was one thing when it was judicial picks. it was another thing when it was low level staff picks. now...
114
114
Feb 14, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 114
favorite 0
quote 0
they got testimony from secretary panetta and the joint chiefs chair dempsey, and they believe that added to what the public knows about benghazi and was the right way to go about this. when brennan comes up to be cia director expect another one of these circumstances but for tonight this is a setback for hagel. it's part of the process. it doesn't derail it but it's a difficult day for chuck hagel. >> kristin welker, are you hearing any reaction from the white house? >> reporter: i can tell you they're working on a statement, martin, right now. they do still continue to stand by their belief that he will ultimately be confirmed. to your point this is a blow to the white house. the president's initial pick for secretary of defense, susan rice, was derailed by the republicans, so this certainly is unwelcome news. >> kristin welker and kelly o'donnell, thank you so much. thank you for watching. chris matthews picks things up right now. >>> the war on chuck hagel. let's play "hardball." ♪ >>> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. the breaking news.
they got testimony from secretary panetta and the joint chiefs chair dempsey, and they believe that added to what the public knows about benghazi and was the right way to go about this. when brennan comes up to be cia director expect another one of these circumstances but for tonight this is a setback for hagel. it's part of the process. it doesn't derail it but it's a difficult day for chuck hagel. >> kristin welker, are you hearing any reaction from the white house? >> reporter: i...
79
79
Feb 11, 2013
02/13
by
WUSA
tv
eye 79
favorite 0
quote 0
he signaling he would take action to prevent brennan and haggle's confirmation unless secretary leon panetta and chair marn of the joint chiefs of staff testified on benghazi. they were on capitol hill last week but senator jack reed says graham is overreacting. >> this is critical. at a time that we're looking at sequester,ing look forward, we're looking at crises across the globe, to dwell on a tragic incident and use that to block people is not appropriate. >> now, if senator graham does put a hold on these two confirmations, democrats would have to muster 60 votes in order to proceed, and he was not the only prominent republican coming out over the weekend to weigh in on these two confirmations. former vice president dick cheney called both hagel and brennan second rate and said their appointments would jeopardize national security. anne-marie? >> susan mcginnis in washington. thank you, susan. >>> straight ahead, your monday morning weather. >>> and in sports, a rumble on the ice involving arrests? [ tylenol bottle ] nyquil what are you doing? [ nyquil bottle ] just reading your label.
he signaling he would take action to prevent brennan and haggle's confirmation unless secretary leon panetta and chair marn of the joint chiefs of staff testified on benghazi. they were on capitol hill last week but senator jack reed says graham is overreacting. >> this is critical. at a time that we're looking at sequester,ing look forward, we're looking at crises across the globe, to dwell on a tragic incident and use that to block people is not appropriate. >> now, if senator...
91
91
Feb 14, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 91
favorite 0
quote 0
and one white house official said, look, it's not a disaster if panetta goes. certainly escapable of going and representing the united states, but he is not the person who the president would like to see serving in the capacity of defense secretary, and, of course, he is leaving that post as we speak. so from that perspective the white house sees this as a real problem. the president would like to have his nominee for secretary of defense in place in brussels next week for these very high-level and important talks as the united states prepares to draw down troops from afghanistan. martin? >> kristin welker. kristin, thank you so much. >>> coming up, wayne lapierre's valentine's day vision, an american of fear and loathing. >>> good afternoon, martin. here is a look at how stocks are going to stand as we go into tomorrow morning's session. it was a mixed day. the jou pared its losses carablely but finished down 9.5 points. the s&p 500 finished up 1 point and the nasdaq gained almost 2. and that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide. martin is back in just
and one white house official said, look, it's not a disaster if panetta goes. certainly escapable of going and representing the united states, but he is not the person who the president would like to see serving in the capacity of defense secretary, and, of course, he is leaving that post as we speak. so from that perspective the white house sees this as a real problem. the president would like to have his nominee for secretary of defense in place in brussels next week for these very high-level...
169
169
Feb 10, 2013
02/13
by
KPIX
tv
eye 169
favorite 0
quote 0
he directed the secretary of defense, as secretary panetta testified, to begin moving assets into the region to provide any response. ambassador pickering, admiral mullen concluded a response would be difficult if not impossible because of time and space. >> schieffer: a lot of people don't know want rules of the senate. senator graham said he's simply going to put a hold on these nominations. you say that's unwarranted. but what will happen next if he does that? >> well i would hope we would have in regular order a hearing and a vote on senator haig expel haig expel brennan and then we would bring it to the floor. i can't recall a secretary of defense that has not least had an opportunity to have their nomination brought to the thereafter senate. the last example was senator tower. it was brought to the popular. it was defeated but it received an up-or-down vote. these are critical offices, the secretary of defense, at a time when we're looking at sequester, looking forward-- looking at crises across the globe to dwell on a trag i think ofic incident and use that to block people is n
he directed the secretary of defense, as secretary panetta testified, to begin moving assets into the region to provide any response. ambassador pickering, admiral mullen concluded a response would be difficult if not impossible because of time and space. >> schieffer: a lot of people don't know want rules of the senate. senator graham said he's simply going to put a hold on these nominations. you say that's unwarranted. but what will happen next if he does that? >> well i would...
85
85
Feb 13, 2013
02/13
by
WJZ
tv
eye 85
favorite 0
quote 0
of the president's cabinet walk in, there's panetta, the defense secretary and, of course eric holdier, the attorney general norah, you've been talking with the white house and you have some of the high points from the president's speech that we're about to here. >> o'donnell: i spoke with a senior white house advisor who said this will be more like a campaign speech than an inaugural address. the president is emboldened by his victory. they know chef a short window of time to get things done so tonight the big fuse that comes out of the speech is this: the president will call for pre-k education for all american children. he will also call for raising of the minimum wage to $9 an hour. the federal minimum wage. it's at $7.25. finally what you reported tonight that he will call for withdrawing 34,000 troops out of afghanistan by the end of the year and, of course, we're still scheduled to be in afghanistan until the end of 2014 to have some troops there. >> pelley: we're waiting for president to enter the chamber here. we expect that in another minute or two. nancy cordes is our capito
of the president's cabinet walk in, there's panetta, the defense secretary and, of course eric holdier, the attorney general norah, you've been talking with the white house and you have some of the high points from the president's speech that we're about to here. >> o'donnell: i spoke with a senior white house advisor who said this will be more like a campaign speech than an inaugural address. the president is emboldened by his victory. they know chef a short window of time to get things...
106
106
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
FOXNEWS
tv
eye 106
favorite 0
quote 0
panetta a simple question. >> who was in charge in benghazi? were you in charge, secretary panetta? >> what do you mean in charge? >> as running the operation, trying to find a way to save our ambassador who was lost. trying to prevent our people from being killed? providing assistance to people who were underattack? >> i mean, it's not that simple. as you know. i think the people that were in charge with the people on the ground. >> would you say secretary clinton in charge. >> pardon me? >> was secretary clinton in charge. >> the people in charge, were the ambassador there at benghazi. >> no. but, they can't, you know, they were trying to save their lives. rick: richard grenell, a former spokesperson for the last four u.s. ambassadors to the u.n. byron york, is chief political correspondent at the "washington examiner". gentlemen, good to see you both. rick, you first. you worked at a number of administrations. odd that the president himself would be so hands off while one of our consulates was under attack? >> yeah, very odd. i think it's, mitt romney was right. it really was a w
panetta a simple question. >> who was in charge in benghazi? were you in charge, secretary panetta? >> what do you mean in charge? >> as running the operation, trying to find a way to save our ambassador who was lost. trying to prevent our people from being killed? providing assistance to people who were underattack? >> i mean, it's not that simple. as you know. i think the people that were in charge with the people on the ground. >> would you say secretary clinton...